Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

Did the Great Oxygenation Event 2.5 bya support or suppress life?

Spread the love

A new paper says it’s not clear:

Scientists have long thought that there was a direct connection between the rise in atmospheric oxygen, which started with the Great Oxygenation Event 2.5 billion years ago, and the rise of large, complex multicellular organisms.

That theory, the “Oxygen Control Hypothesis,” suggests that the size of these early multicellular organisms was limited by the depth to which oxygen could diffuse into their bodies. The hypothesis makes a simple prediction that has been highly influential within both evolutionary biology and geosciences: Greater atmospheric oxygen should always increase the size to which multicellular organisms can grow.

It’s a hypothesis that’s proven difficult to test in a lab. Yet a team of Georgia Tech researchers found a way — using directed evolution, synthetic biology, and mathematical modeling — all brought to bear on a simple multicellular lifeform called a ‘snowflake yeast’. The results? Significant new information on the correlations between oxygenation of the early Earth and the rise of large multicellular organisms — and it’s all about exactly how much O2 was available to some of our earliest multicellular ancestors.

“The positive effect of oxygen on the evolution of multicellularity is entirely dose-dependent — our planet’s first oxygenation would have strongly constrained, not promoted, the evolution of multicellular life,” explains G. Ozan Bozdag, research scientist in the School of Biological Sciences and the study’s lead author. “The positive effect of oxygen on multicellular size may only be realized when it reaches high levels.”

Did Earth’s Early Rise in Oxygen Support The Evolution of Multicellular Life — or Suppress It?” at Georgia Tech Earth and Atmosphere Sciences (May 14, 2021)

The paper is open access.

So if the value of oxygen is dose-dependent, life probably had even less time to work with to become large and complex.

5 Replies to “Did the Great Oxygenation Event 2.5 bya support or suppress life?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Diffusion is something that happens in rocks and liquids. Life always finds more complex and purposeful ways to input and transfer and use necessary chemicals.

    When an experiment starts from an inanimate hypothesis, it’s automatically invalid for living things. Even the simplest cells have ACTIVE valves and gates to input and output gases and liquids selectively.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    From the paper,

    “Scientists have long thought that there was a direct connection between the rise in atmospheric oxygen, which started with the Great Oxygenation Event 2.5 billion years ago, and the rise of large, complex multicellular organisms.
    That theory, the “Oxygen Control Hypothesis,” suggests that the size of these early multicellular organisms was limited by the depth to which oxygen could diffuse into their bodies. The hypothesis makes a simple prediction that has been highly influential within both evolutionary biology and geosciences: Greater atmospheric oxygen should always increase the size to which multicellular organisms can grow.”

    Good, a specific, testable, prediction of Atheistic Naturalism and/or Darwinian materialism!

    And how did the prediction hold up to testing? Well, as usual for Atheists, not too good.

    “our planet’s first oxygenation would have strongly constrained, not promoted, the evolution of multicellular life,”,,,
    “Oxygen suppression of macroscopic multicellularity” is published in the May 14, 2021 edition of the journal Nature Communications.,,,
    “We show that the effect of oxygen is more complex than previously imagined. The early rise in global oxygen should in fact strongly constrain the evolution of macroscopic multicellularity, rather than selecting for larger and more complex organisms,” notes Ratcliff.
    “People have long believed that the oxygenation of Earth’s surface was helpful — some going so far as to say it is a precondition — for the evolution of large, complex multicellular organisms,” he adds. “But nobody has ever tested this directly, because we haven’t had a model system that is both able to undergo lots of generations of evolution quickly, and able to grow over the full range of oxygen conditions,” from anaerobic conditions up to modern levels.,,,
    “I was astonished to see that multicellular yeast doubled their size very rapidly when they could not use oxygen, while populations that evolved in the moderately oxygenated environment showed no size increase at all,” he says. “This effect is robust — even over much longer timescales.”

    So, another prediction of Atheistic Naturalism and/or Darwinian materialism bites the dust.

    You would think that Atheistic Naturalists and/or Darwinian materialists would start to notice that all their major predictions, when tested, end up being falsified.

    Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015
    This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory.
    *Introduction
    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Responses to common objections
    *Early evolution predictions
    The DNA code is not unique
    The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal
    *Evolutionary causes predictions
    Mutations are not adaptive
    Embryology and common descent
    Competition is greatest between neighbors
    *Molecular evolution predictions
    Protein evolution
    Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change
    The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time
    *Common descent predictions
    The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
    Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships
    Biology is not lineage specific
    Similar species share similar genes
    MicroRNA
    *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions
    Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
    Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
    Gene phylogenies are congruent
    The species should form an evolutionary tree
    *Evolutionary pathways predictions
    Complex structures evolved from simpler structures
    Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them
    Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved
    Nature does not make leaps
    *Behavior
    Altruism
    Cell death
    *Conclusions
    What false predictions tell us about evolution
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

    Oh well, so much for Darwin’s theory being a true scientific theory.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

    Of supplemental note to the false Darwinian notion that oxygenation, in and of itself, is somehow sufficient within itself to explain the origin of multicellularity.

    Should There Be a Time Limit for Cambrian Explosion Excuses? – July 15, 2019
    Excerpt: In Nature Communications, Williams, Mills, and Lenton also pump up the oxygen theory. They describe “A tectonically-driven Ediacaran oxygenation event,” beginning, “The oxygenation of the Earth system was a necessary condition for the rise of complex animal life.” That’s true, but irrelevant. Complex life requires many necessary conditions, all of which are insufficient in themselves.,,,
    ,,, So here is a remark. Evolutionary scientists have had 160 years to figure out this dilemma. Give the stage to people who invoke causes that are necessary and sufficient to explain the observations of functional, complex, hierarchically organized animal body plans. ID offers such a cause: intelligence.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/07/should-there-be-a-time-limit-for-cambrian-explosion-excuses/

    On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020)
    Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis (of Darwinian evolution) as irrelevant.,,,
    At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    There was an episode of a British mystery series that involved scuba diving. One of the divers was killed because someone filled his tanks with pure oxygen. Essentially he went into convulsions and died at about 50 meters in depth.

  4. 4
    paige says:

    I would think that it both suppressed and supported life. For obligate anaerobes it reduced the volume of habitat available to them. For life that could use free oxygen, it made more habitat available.

  5. 5
    hoosfoos says:

    Is this an opportunity to work out competing hypotheses consistent with ID?

    Could oxygenation have been the trigger for speciation? Perhaps code was already resident in existing lifeforms and all that was needed was an appropriate environmental stimulus.

Leave a Reply